When reading these articles, I had a difficult time taking them seriously or trying to soak up what they were saying because I found both of their sides so extreme and sarcastic. I guess I ended up analyzing these articles more objectively as example texts of exactly what these two authors are discussing. Carr's article is arguing that the Web has made us less able to focus or read long articles, yet he wrote a pretty long one himself. I also found my mind wandering and wanting to read something else while he was explaining that he is unable to read long articles anymore. Coincidence or boring writing? Maybe I am an example of what he is arguing? I'm not sure.
I also feel like Carr strayed off topic, as Shirky said, by starting to discuss the computer's role in mankind throughout history. I thought we were talking about just Google? Just online reading/searching? I was also a bit appalled by the sheer tenacity of each writer. They attacked each other with no mercy. Obviously, Shirky's entire article is an attack (a response, but a bold one). But Carr's response in his Skepticism article attacks Shirky's use of religious language and eventually refers to his whole idea as "techno-utopianism." I guess I just couldn't get over how strange and ironic this type of writing was to actually form an opinion on the subject of whether the internet has caused our society to be less intelligent. It's hard for me to side with either of them when I think they're rhetoric is so funny!